RichardDodd/Felix - It is not so much a right-left issue, eg Hillary Clinton was for intervention in Syria, Rand Paul is strongly opposed, Philip Hammond and Theresa May are opposed, many Blairites are for. Generally the right may be more in favour than the left, but it is not clear-cut and many are worried about the rebels Al Qaeda links etc, in my view rightly
I fully agree - but its not me you should be telling this to.
It's sad listening to the endless posts today with their vicious and ill-informed smearing about Cameron, Hague, etc - without a single reference as far as I've read of the plight of the Syrians caught up in this horrendous situation. I suspect that there is little Britain, France or the UK can do given the position of Russia and China - but I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today.
And on that note you all have free rein to condemn me as an evil baby-killing Tory if it makes you feel any better.
Felix, I am not smearing them, I am a supporter of them. But I just can't understand this. Why is it in our national interest? Why would we even consider repeating the Iraq precedent of an illegal war? Why do we think killing a few people and destroying some "command and control" centres is going to make things better? Whilst we obviously do not approve of the killing why do we support the opposition in Syria and fight the same people in Afghanistan?
If you can come up with a coherent explanation as to why this is legal, moral and in our interests (or frankly any one of the three) I would be delighted to read it because I am struggling.
A reminder .. The alternative to intervention.. which I do not favour..is to watch the bodies being piled up on the news every night..It is going to take a strong stomach. But after a while it will become the norm and we can discuss weight problems etc. Instead of watching Soap Operas... we can watch the real thing.. Blood Operas' The Daily St*r will love it.
Enough hand-wringing on Syria - the world needs to take action
This paralysis is so extreme that an emergency session of the UN Security Council yesterday called for “clarity” on what happened, but fell short of even calling for an investigation. Time is running fast. The UN team must immediately have access to the site of the alleged attack, be allowed to collect samples, gather evidence which risks being destroyed, interview victims and witnesses, and carry out its work safely in an area under the control of armed opposition groups and shelling by the government.
The situation reveals the level of paralysis that has gripped the international community in dealing with Syria
It would be grotesque to have a UN team looking into use of chemical weapons not investigate what could be the most lethal chemical attack since their use by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Whoever was behind the attack, one thing is clear – the international community must now mobilize not only to condemn it, but to bring those responsible to justice.
The international community has been given one last chance to turn the corner on its ineffectual response to the long litany of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Syria – which have left more than 100,000 dead, millions displaced and forced almost 2 million refugees to flee.
Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the UN Security Council to refer the grave situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court – to begin the process of holding those responsible, on all sides, to account.
We are beyond hand-wringing on Syria. Civilians continue to be targeted or killed indiscriminately. The time for action is now.
Any fule who thinks that a UN resolution is required to make a war "legal" should not be given access to the internet. Questions about the legality of the Iraq War do not tend to rely upon French acceptance within the UNSC but upon the judgement of the then Attorney-General....
@Plato - surely Afghanistan was inescapable. A deadly attack had been launched on the USA and the Taleban government of Afghanistan was sheltering/inextricably linked with the organisation that was waging war against us. You can argue that we could have done it differently, but I can see no alternative to going after al-Qaeda.
It's sad listening to the endless posts today with their vicious and ill-informed smearing about Cameron, Hague, etc - without a single reference as far as I've read of the plight of the Syrians caught up in this horrendous situation. I suspect that there is little Britain, France or the UK can do given the position of Russia and China - but I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today.
And on that note you all have free rein to condemn me as an evil baby-killing Tory if it makes you feel any better.
Felix, I am not smearing them, I am a supporter of them. But I just can't understand this. Why is it in our national interest? Why would we even consider repeating the Iraq precedent of an illegal war? Why do we think killing a few people and destroying some "command and control" centres is going to make things better? Whilst we obviously do not approve of the killing why do we support the opposition in Syria and fight the same people in Afghanistan?
If you can come up with a coherent explanation as to why this is legal, moral and in our interests (or frankly any one of the three) I would be delighted to read it because I am struggling.
John Schindler @20committee Because people who aren't spies spend their 30th birthday with the FSB - sorry, Russian "diplomats" - all the time. Totally normal. #Snowden
It's sad listening to the endless posts today with their vicious and ill-informed smearing about Cameron, Hague, etc - without a single reference as far as I've read of the plight of the Syrians caught up in this horrendous situation. I suspect that there is little Britain, France or the UK can do given the position of Russia and China - but I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today.
And on that note you all have free rein to condemn me as an evil baby-killing Tory if it makes you feel any better.
Felix, I am not smearing them, I am a supporter of them. But I just can't understand this. Why is it in our national interest? Why would we even consider repeating the Iraq precedent of an illegal war? Why do we think killing a few people and destroying some "command and control" centres is going to make things better? Whilst we obviously do not approve of the killing why do we support the opposition in Syria and fight the same people in Afghanistan?
If you can come up with a coherent explanation as to why this is legal, moral and in our interests (or frankly any one of the three) I would be delighted to read it because I am struggling.
We are not in disagreement if you read my post.
Sorry, I misunderstood your position. It is odd though. Our best hope is that Obama is a ditherer of the first order and will probably continue to hesitate. This is exactly the moment to go wobbly Barak. Please.
DavidL - Fortunately he is, here is an excerpt from Obama's interview with CNN I posted on Saturday:
"We're moving through the UN to try to prompt better action from them."
And then: "The notion that the US can somehow solve what is a sectarian, complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated."
Pleading He calls the attack "troublesome" and says it touches on core national interests of the US, but quickly adds: "Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."
Why is killing people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing them another way ?
When we kill some Syrian civilians in 'collateral damage' using drone attacks, just as we did in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan, will that somehow be acceptable ?
Or will we see Cameron and Hollande and Obama arrested as war criminals ?
There is a world of difference between oil shale and shale gas. Incidentally, as well as Estonia, Jordan has reserves of the stuff. (The country, not Katie Price)
""I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today."
Felix there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than 'purer motives'
It's probably 'purer motives' that led to the huge social and financial troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Perhaps voters have had quite enough of being overlooked, ignored, traduced, mortgaged and killed to suit the 'purer motives' of others.
Mr. Richard, I'd guess because the death is prolonged and painful, as well as being entirely non-discriminatory.
A problem is that once you say "chemical weapons are a red line" then your only options after their deployment is impotence or getting involved in something that nobody (who isn't a politician) seems to be want us to be involved in.
So the UN observer convoy has turned back due to sniper fire. So ends another UN fiasco and a win-win situation for Assad, who is running rings around the so called western powers and calling their bluff.
Trouble with Obama is that he has a very big mouth that can't leave off spouting stupid statements like "Red Lines". He has made himself to be a clown and a big girls blouse, but worse he has made the USA look feeble when their whole possition in middle east is crumbling. Putin must be LOL!
""I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today."
Felix there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than 'purer motives'
It's probably 'purer motives' that led to the huge social and financial troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Perhaps voters have had quite enough of being overlooked, ignored, traduced, mortgaged and killed to suit the 'purer motives' of others.
Not to mention that the 'purer motives' of Cameron and Hollande are primarily to get themselves reelected.
AnotherRichard - Syria is not the Falklands, Cameron and Hollande will get no electoral bonus at all if they intervene and Hollande could even lose support in the first round of the presidential election to a left-wing pacifist
Tim - Ironically ten years after Iraq it is now Hague and Cameron, not Bush and Cheney, who are trying to ignore the UN, Obama, like Blair, wants to get UN approval for any action first
A problem is that once you say "chemical weapons are a red line" then your only options after their deployment is impotence or getting involved in something that nobody (who isn't a politician) seems to be want us to be involved in.
A wise politician remembers 'talk softly but carry a big stick' the present political pygmies are more 'all mouth no trousers'.
Mr. Richard, I'd disagree. Short of a biological or nuclear attack it's hard to think of another method of killing which is so indiscriminate.
However, I'm entirely in agreement with you regarding the foolishness of a potential intervention in Syria. Even if it worked we'd probably just end up propelling zealots into power.
"These squalls came before the Home Office’s “Go Home” vans carrying adverts nominally aimed at illegal immigrants, about which Liberal Democrat ministers have been most exercised over the summer. Clegg and Jeremy Browne, the Lib Dem Minister of State in the Home Office, were furious, but it was too late. They were both on holiday when Theresa May, the Home Secretary, approved the billboards, which might as well have read “Vote Conservative” "
Is this a coalition ? It also shows the Lib Dems have never realised how powerful they are. Whatever their numbers, the Tories cannot pass anything without their help. The LD's are effectively equal partners.
So anytime Tories do something like this, deliberately and mischievously, make them pay a penalty. Don't allow a legislation close to Tory hearts and tell them why they are not supporting them.
After all, what can the Tories do ? Don't have a coalition with the Ld's next time. They would if they could anyway.
""I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today."
Felix there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than 'purer motives'
It's probably 'purer motives' that led to the huge social and financial troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Perhaps voters have had quite enough of being overlooked, ignored, traduced, mortgaged and killed to suit the 'purer motives' of others.
Not to mention that the 'purer motives' of Cameron and Hollande are primarily to get themselves reelected.
Sorry but that is nonsense. Cameron's line on this is clearly not popular as today's outpourings of bile has demonstrated most cogently. If you think it's just politics then you do yourself a disservice.
My problem with this gung ho interventionists in Syria is this: Who do we intend to replace Assad with assuming we could do it in the first place ? Will it be like jumping from a frying pan into the fire ?
Turkey would like to balkanise Syria since it allows Al-Qaeda to clean out the Kurds from North Eastern Syria and reduce their Kurdish headache.
""I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today."
Felix there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than 'purer motives'
It's probably 'purer motives' that led to the huge social and financial troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Perhaps voters have had quite enough of being overlooked, ignored, traduced, mortgaged and killed to suit the 'purer motives' of others.
Not to mention that the 'purer motives' of Cameron and Hollande are primarily to get themselves reelected.
Sorry but that is nonsense. Cameron's line on this is clearly not popular as today's outpourings of bile has demonstrated most cogently. If you think it's just politics then you do yourself a disservice.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what these 'purer motives' are then ?
Its without doubt a fact that for the last 20 years we've had British governments meddling in other people's wars in the hope of recreating that illusive 'Falklands factor'.
What none of them have yet realised is that Thatcher didn't go looking for a war, it came to her and that's why it had public support.
''Who do we intend to replace Assad with assuming we could do it in the first place ? Will it be like jumping from a frying pan into the fire ?''
The experience to date seems to be that Islamists tend to fill the void, or they at least try to. And they are handily equipped with all that lovely ordnance we've supplied.
Its without doubt a fact that for the last 20 years we've had British governments meddling in other people's wars in the hope of recreating that illusive 'Falklands factor'.
Ouch, that's harsh! I dont think I could think so badly of any leading politicians of any main party to suggest they would get involved in a war for party political motives!
If you haven't tripped across this advertising campaign on Twitter - its brilliant. £300k to promote offal and in particular tripe/local butchers. There was a similar campaign a year or two ago and it was very amusing too. This one is well worth following.
TripeMarketingBoard @TripeUK Believe It Or Not Jeff Beck's Hi Ho Silver Lining was composed by a former tripe dresser and was originally called Hi Ho Stomach Lining.
Plato, you are right to note this. Now that the Indy Referendum is looming close, there is no doubt that its become a far more divisive issue among some families and friends where views are totally entrenched one way or the other. And far more so than anything I have seen when it comes to the usual tribal party politics. What ever the result, I suspect its going to leave a lingering sense of resentment/grievance for those passionate about the issue who end up on the losing side for a while to come.
"The level of foaming incoherence is frankly embarrassing and the determination of cyber nats to hear no voice but their own depressing."
It does point to some unpleasant divisions after the vote particularly if it's close
I suspect that even if its a No as wide as the AV vote result - it'll still be unpleasant which is very sad and destructive.
The only way there will be issues in families is if they have issues beforehand. It is complete rubbish to say that any normal person will fall out with their family over which way they vote. Just scaremongering of the worst kind.
People fall out over silly things all the time. The Disruption of 1843 led entire Scottish families to fall out with each other, forming rifts that did not heal for decades. ISTR that the Stevenson family (of Bell Rock lighthouse fame) were affected by the disruption.
Now that was a long time ago, and with different circumstances. But it shows how a firmly-held belief can split families asunder.
ISTR a story during the English Civil War, where a Lord and his son sit down for a meal on the eve of battle (Worcester?). They said goodbye to each other at the end of the meal, and went to opposing camps. By the next evening both were dead.
It's interesting that just two days before 9/l1, the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Massoud, possibly the only man who could have united them properly, was killed by an Al-Queda suicide bomber. The logical reason is that Al-Queda anticipated an American response and prepared for it.
Mohammed Omah was never going to give the Americans the culprits, even if he could have done, so Osama knew the Yanks would go in hard. Once the Northern Alliance (courtesy of US technology), and now with competing ambitions, pushed back the Taliban, the scene was set for the inevitable warlord squabbles.
They set the trap, and the US were never going to avoid it.
""I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today."
Felix there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than 'purer motives'
It's probably 'purer motives' that led to the huge social and financial troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Perhaps voters have had quite enough of being overlooked, ignored, traduced, mortgaged and killed to suit the 'purer motives' of others.
Not to mention that the 'purer motives' of Cameron and Hollande are primarily to get themselves reelected.
Sorry but that is nonsense. Cameron's line on this is clearly not popular as today's outpourings of bile has demonstrated most cogently. If you think it's just politics then you do yourself a disservice.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what these 'purer motives' are then ?
Its without doubt a fact that for the last 20 years we've had British governments meddling in other people's wars in the hope of recreating that illusive 'Falklands factor'.
What none of them have yet realised is that Thatcher didn't go looking for a war, it came to her and that's why it had public support.
When you say " it's without doubt a fact " you do realise you're actually expressing an opinion don't you?
I dont think I could think so badly of any leading politicians of any main party to suggest they would get involved in a war for party political motives!
It's more pathetic than that isn't it Neil ??
None of them can resist all the big boy diplomatic stuff, all the conference calls with Barack and Angela, all the statesmanlike posing, all the scrambling of fighter jets etc etc etc.
The Falklands was something completely different. It was a desperate gamble by one leader of one country (unaided or supported by others) in defence of its own sovereign territory.
None of them can resist all the big boy diplomatic stuff, all the conference calls with Barack and Angela, all the statesmanlike posing, all the scrambling of fighter jets etc etc etc.
I think that's harsh too! I would like to think they take the advice they're given and try to do their best even if we dont always agree.
There isnt a bigger critic of Blair over Iraq than me but I dont think he did it for popular support or for the chance to be an international player. I think he thought he was taking the best course of action.
''Who do we intend to replace Assad with assuming we could do it in the first place ? Will it be like jumping from a frying pan into the fire ?''
The experience to date seems to be that Islamists tend to fill the void, or they at least try to. And they are handily equipped with all that lovely ordnance we've supplied.
Humanitarian aid and sanctions only, in my book.
An agreement was reached with Russia at the Northern Ireland G8 meeting on the procedure to be followed by the international powers (i.e. UN Security Council permanent members) in the event that chemical weapons were used in the Syrian conflict.
The first stage is for UN to verify claims of the use of chemical weapons and then to report directly to the UN Security Council. Sergei Lavrov is maintaining that it is not within the mandate of the UN inspectors in Syria to determine who within Syria were responsible for the use of any chemical weapons.
Russia's preferred solution to the Syrian conflict is a political resolution negotiated between internal Syrian combatants supported by the international powers. Russia believes that Assad and his regime must remain in at least titular power until a negotiated settlement is reached. Russian reasoning is that Assad's early removal would lead to aggravated regional conflict and instability.
The 'Western powers' (US, UK & France) are not opposed to Russia's goals but were frustrated at Russia's reluctance to push the timetable for negotiations with any urgency. In early summer, Assad was gaining military ascendancy in the civil war and there was suspicion that Russia was only pushing for time.
The lack of a summer resolution to the military conflict and the 'alleged' use of chemical weapons has now changed the state of diplomatic play.
I suspect Obama, Cameron and Hollande's main short term goal is now to call in Russian undertakings on co-operation within the Security Council in the event of the chemical weapons being used in the conflict and to inject new urgency into Russia's commitment to push for negotiations in Geneva.
The threat of military intervention in Syria, or the target of any token intervention, is much more likely to be Putin than Assad.
I get the impression that most of the critics on PB of the Politicians who are trying to stop some deaths in a foreign country, when diplomatic solutions do not seem to be working, and seemingly attempting to do that without deep involvement, would not be able to decide which sauce to put on their chips. I would hate to be in the position that those Politicians find themselves in, and no, I do not think it is an ego thing. It is a civilised thing.
TUD.. You would certainly live in a different set of circumstances if I were Prime Minister..Your benefit would drop for starters. As usual of course you miss the point entirely.. but then we are used to that. So what is it to be today tud .. Brown Sauce on the haggis or the red stuff...difficult innit?
Afternoon all - for anyone that would like to take part, the Australia and Norway election games are below, entries for both close 7pm Thursday 5th September:
There is a world of difference between oil shale and shale gas. Incidentally, as well as Estonia, Jordan has reserves of the stuff. (The country, not Katie Price)
Don't rule her out. Katie Price, too, is well known for widespread drilling and fracking.
Not really convinced that we're seeing more than the preprogrammed distancing of Tories and LibDems for the last 2 years of the Parliament. If so, it will get worse, in a mild sort of way, but unless something gets out of hand it won't end the government.
On Syria, I recognise all the arguments on both sides. I do think that Tony Blair was sincere in believing that we needed to intervene in Iraq to prevent a catastrophe (and I don't take the view that all deaths since then, mostly committed by Al Quaeda, are his responsibility). I believe that Cameron is sincere too, and that he was sincere about Libya. But I've changed my mind about the "Something must be done and we should do it" line of thought - if we're going to kill someone, we need to be really sure that the long-term outcome will be positive and that it's appropriate for Britain to decide. That didn't seem to me clear in Libya, and it's even less clear now. Sanctions yes, humanitarian aid yes, anything agreed at the UN yes - otherwise, no.
Blair took us into a war with Iraq using Terrorism/WMD's as the excuse for regime change, and now the world 'officially' sits on its hands as the Syrian Regime use WMD's on its own people as the country descends into a horrific civil war. Thanks to Blair and his Government, the British people are never going to trust their own Government's judgement or intelligence again any time soon. I still find it incredible just how casually Blair and his Government destroyed the inherent trust that had existed between the public and Government on the grave decision to take the country into a war. Blair made it his own personal Global mission to make himself and the UK the worlds policeman, now should have been time for other countries to step up to the plate and take the lead at the UN.
It should have been the collective Arab League and the Russians taking the lead, only that hasn't happened due to sabre rattling resistance from Putin and the spreading instability in the Middle East caused by Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and even Turkey. The Middle East is split with Saudi Arabia/Jordan supporting the rebels while Iran is aiding and shoring up the Assad regime. And then you throw in the various far more dangerous elements on both sides roaming around Syria, and its now developing into a ticking time bomb for the whole world. I don't know what the answer is to the Syrian tragedy unfolding on our TV screens, and like most people I don't want to see UK intervention of the kind we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan with troops on the ground. But we will have to intervene at some point, and not just on a humanitarian level. We are in a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario here.
The Assad Regime have used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, that has upped the ante to a whole new level. Obama correctly made the use of chemical weapons his red line in the sand over the whole issue Syria, whether he backs this up or not remains to be seen. But on a national security level alone, our world leaders should be asking themselves if they can risk leaving those chemical weapons freely available to be used in Syria. And also if they can guarantee that they won't fall into the hands of some of the more dangerous imported terrorist factions that are now actively involved on both sides of this civil war. Do we leave Syria to it and just hope that what is being used there on the civilian population remains contained there and isn't ever going turn up elsewhere in the wrong hands?
""I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today."
Felix there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than 'purer motives'
It's probably 'purer motives' that led to the huge social and financial troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Perhaps voters have had quite enough of being overlooked, ignored, traduced, mortgaged and killed to suit the 'purer motives' of others.
Not to mention that the 'purer motives' of Cameron and Hollande are primarily to get themselves reelected.
Sorry but that is nonsense. Cameron's line on this is clearly not popular as today's outpourings of bile has demonstrated most cogently. If you think it's just politics then you do yourself a disservice.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what these 'purer motives' are then ?
Its without doubt a fact that for the last 20 years we've had British governments meddling in other people's wars in the hope of recreating that illusive 'Falklands factor'.
What none of them have yet realised is that Thatcher didn't go looking for a war, it came to her and that's why it had public support.
When you say " it's without doubt a fact " you do realise you're actually expressing an opinion don't you?
So despite telling us that our political leaders are acting from 'purer motives' you are unable to tell us what these 'purer motives' are.
I'll stick to thinking their motives are rather impure - it tends to be the safest assumption when dealing with our political leaders.
A problem is that once you say "chemical weapons are a red line" then your only options after their deployment is impotence or getting involved in something that nobody (who isn't a politician) seems to be want us to be involved in.
A wise politician remembers 'talk softly but carry a big stick' the present political pygmies are more 'all mouth no trousers'.
The "big stick" is impotent if Assad knows you won't wield it.
Comments
Farage in June in Scotland
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KyXQmZCxNvo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=KyXQmZCxNvo
If you can come up with a coherent explanation as to why this is legal, moral and in our interests (or frankly any one of the three) I would be delighted to read it because I am struggling.
But after a while it will become the norm and we can discuss weight problems etc.
Instead of watching Soap Operas... we can watch the real thing.. Blood Operas'
The Daily St*r will love it.
:pull-your-socks-up-lads:
Iraq was definitely a choice though.
Snipers shoot at UN chemical inspectors: UN
Snipers shoot at UN chemical inspectors: UN.
Can that be why they are still travelling to site?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSizkl2CAAEMxam.jpg:large
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23838900
Because people who aren't spies spend their 30th birthday with the FSB - sorry, Russian "diplomats" - all the time. Totally normal. #Snowden
"We're moving through the UN to try to prompt better action from them."
And then: "The notion that the US can somehow solve what is a sectarian, complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated."
Pleading
He calls the attack "troublesome" and says it touches on core national interests of the US, but quickly adds: "Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."
Why is killing people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing them another way ?
When we kill some Syrian civilians in 'collateral damage' using drone attacks, just as we did in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan, will that somehow be acceptable ?
Or will we see Cameron and Hollande and Obama arrested as war criminals ?
Felix there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than 'purer motives'
It's probably 'purer motives' that led to the huge social and financial troubles we find ourselves in at the moment.
Perhaps voters have had quite enough of being overlooked, ignored, traduced, mortgaged and killed to suit the 'purer motives' of others.
A problem is that once you say "chemical weapons are a red line" then your only options after their deployment is impotence or getting involved in something that nobody (who isn't a politician) seems to be want us to be involved in.
Trouble with Obama is that he has a very big mouth that can't leave off spouting stupid statements like "Red Lines". He has made himself to be a clown and a big girls blouse, but worse he has made the USA look feeble when their whole possition in middle east is crumbling. Putin must be LOL!
Evening News @edinburghpaper
Glasgow man says Edinburgh chippy charging for tomato sauce - but not for brown - is racist
bit.ly/1fdDVD0
Welsh patients 'denied newer cancer drugs'
Campaigners say there is a significant divide between England and Wales in access to new cancer medicines.
The Rarer Cancers Foundation (RCF) is claiming patients in Wales are four times less likely to receive new treatment than those in England.
Health ministers in England set up a special fund worth £200m a year in 2010, to help pay for expensive new cancer drugs. .........
It says the approval rates for medicines were 7.05 per 100,000 in Wales, compared to 29.10 per 100,000 in England.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23808682
Would UKIP beating the Conservatives in the 2014 locals be enough to cost Mr Cameron his job?
However, I'm entirely in agreement with you regarding the foolishness of a potential intervention in Syria. Even if it worked we'd probably just end up propelling zealots into power.
Is this a coalition ? It also shows the Lib Dems have never realised how powerful they are. Whatever their numbers, the Tories cannot pass anything without their help. The LD's are effectively equal partners.
So anytime Tories do something like this, deliberately and mischievously, make them pay a penalty. Don't allow a legislation close to Tory hearts and tell them why they are not supporting them.
After all, what can the Tories do ? Don't have a coalition with the Ld's next time. They would if they could anyway.
Turkey would like to balkanise Syria since it allows Al-Qaeda to clean out the Kurds from North Eastern Syria and reduce their Kurdish headache.
Its without doubt a fact that for the last 20 years we've had British governments meddling in other people's wars in the hope of recreating that illusive 'Falklands factor'.
What none of them have yet realised is that Thatcher didn't go looking for a war, it came to her and that's why it had public support.
The experience to date seems to be that Islamists tend to fill the void, or they at least try to. And they are handily equipped with all that lovely ordnance we've supplied.
Humanitarian aid and sanctions only, in my book.
RT @NigellaFarage: Antipasti is the traditional first course of a formal Italian meal, not a bunch of lefty troublemakers opposed to Greggs
What a tool that man is.
TripeMarketingBoard @TripeUK
Believe It Or Not Jeff Beck's Hi Ho Silver Lining was composed by a former tripe dresser and was originally called Hi Ho Stomach Lining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruption_of_1843
Now that was a long time ago, and with different circumstances. But it shows how a firmly-held belief can split families asunder.
ISTR a story during the English Civil War, where a Lord and his son sit down for a meal on the eve of battle (Worcester?). They said goodbye to each other at the end of the meal, and went to opposing camps. By the next evening both were dead.
It's interesting that just two days before 9/l1, the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Massoud, possibly the only man who could have united them properly, was killed by an Al-Queda suicide bomber. The logical reason is that Al-Queda anticipated an American response and prepared for it.
Mohammed Omah was never going to give the Americans the culprits, even if he could have done, so Osama knew the Yanks would go in hard. Once the Northern Alliance (courtesy of US technology), and now with competing ambitions, pushed back the Taliban, the scene was set for the inevitable warlord squabbles.
They set the trap, and the US were never going to avoid it.
It's more pathetic than that isn't it Neil ??
None of them can resist all the big boy diplomatic stuff, all the conference calls with Barack and Angela, all the statesmanlike posing, all the scrambling of fighter jets etc etc etc.
The Falklands was something completely different. It was a desperate gamble by one leader of one country (unaided or supported by others) in defence of its own sovereign territory.
There isnt a bigger critic of Blair over Iraq than me but I dont think he did it for popular support or for the chance to be an international player. I think he thought he was taking the best course of action.
Maybe I'm naive
I think he took one look at the Whitehouse and swooned.
The first stage is for UN to verify claims of the use of chemical weapons and then to report directly to the UN Security Council. Sergei Lavrov is maintaining that it is not within the mandate of the UN inspectors in Syria to determine who within Syria were responsible for the use of any chemical weapons.
Russia's preferred solution to the Syrian conflict is a political resolution negotiated between internal Syrian combatants supported by the international powers. Russia believes that Assad and his regime must remain in at least titular power until a negotiated settlement is reached. Russian reasoning is that Assad's early removal would lead to aggravated regional conflict and instability.
The 'Western powers' (US, UK & France) are not opposed to Russia's goals but were frustrated at Russia's reluctance to push the timetable for negotiations with any urgency. In early summer, Assad was gaining military ascendancy in the civil war and there was suspicion that Russia was only pushing for time.
The lack of a summer resolution to the military conflict and the 'alleged' use of chemical weapons has now changed the state of diplomatic play.
I suspect Obama, Cameron and Hollande's main short term goal is now to call in Russian undertakings on co-operation within the Security Council in the event of the chemical weapons being used in the conflict and to inject new urgency into Russia's commitment to push for negotiations in Geneva.
The threat of military intervention in Syria, or the target of any token intervention, is much more likely to be Putin than Assad.
I would hate to be in the position that those Politicians find themselves in, and no, I do not think it is an ego thing.
It is a civilised thing.
Ed would be incommunicado on holiday and no one would dare to ring Justine.
As usual of course you miss the point entirely.. but then we are used to that.
So what is it to be today tud .. Brown Sauce on the haggis or the red stuff...difficult innit?
Afternoon all - for anyone that would like to take part, the Australia and Norway election games are below, entries for both close 7pm Thursday 5th September:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/australia13/
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/norway13/
Many thanks,
DC
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/notting-hill-carnival-police-delight-crowd-with-impromptu-row-the-boat-dance-off-8784728.html
It is the price a father has to pay for dithering over a firstborn's birth certificate.
Never forget, never forgive.
On Syria, I recognise all the arguments on both sides. I do think that Tony Blair was sincere in believing that we needed to intervene in Iraq to prevent a catastrophe (and I don't take the view that all deaths since then, mostly committed by Al Quaeda, are his responsibility). I believe that Cameron is sincere too, and that he was sincere about Libya. But I've changed my mind about the "Something must be done and we should do it" line of thought - if we're going to kill someone, we need to be really sure that the long-term outcome will be positive and that it's appropriate for Britain to decide. That didn't seem to me clear in Libya, and it's even less clear now. Sanctions yes, humanitarian aid yes, anything agreed at the UN yes - otherwise, no.
It should have been the collective Arab League and the Russians taking the lead, only that hasn't happened due to sabre rattling resistance from Putin and the spreading instability in the Middle East caused by Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and even Turkey. The Middle East is split with Saudi Arabia/Jordan supporting the rebels while Iran is aiding and shoring up the Assad regime. And then you throw in the various far more dangerous elements on both sides roaming around Syria, and its now developing into a ticking time bomb for the whole world. I don't know what the answer is to the Syrian tragedy unfolding on our TV screens, and like most people I don't want to see UK intervention of the kind we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan with troops on the ground. But we will have to intervene at some point, and not just on a humanitarian level. We are in a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario here.
The Assad Regime have used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, that has upped the ante to a whole new level. Obama correctly made the use of chemical weapons his red line in the sand over the whole issue Syria, whether he backs this up or not remains to be seen. But on a national security level alone, our world leaders should be asking themselves if they can risk leaving those chemical weapons freely available to be used in Syria. And also if they can guarantee that they won't fall into the hands of some of the more dangerous imported terrorist factions that are now actively involved on both sides of this civil war. Do we leave Syria to it and just hope that what is being used there on the civilian population remains contained there and isn't ever going turn up elsewhere in the wrong hands?
I'll stick to thinking their motives are rather impure - it tends to be the safest assumption when dealing with our political leaders.